If Bandcamp were to try such a move they would destroy the value of their business overnight. Retroactively changing the agreement with your customers about their IP is the best way to permanently destroy trust.
1,857 karma · joined September 3, 2020
They are wasting so much money building and rebuilding the same features over and over again, or on half baked features that aren’t useful to 99% of their user base like DOTS.
Banks also generally make it hard/impossible to opt out of overdraft, something that would probably be preferable to many customers. Overdraft fees are a huge source of income these days.
I understand you aren't selling this in my region, but not even letting me look at the product is super frustrating.
It’s trivial to work around this and create inauthentic signed images by staging a fake scene, or doctoring an image and then feeding the doctored image into the camera sensor.
For more details see https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/919-Cl...
What’s the point of these draconian identity measures if criminals are abusing others through your service anyway?
Tor has received significant funding from the US intelligence community through it's entire existence. If you are US aligned is Tor safe? Advocating for democracy in some war torn dictatorship? Probably. On the other hand if you are doing something that upsets US intelligence how much would you really trust Tor?
For all the talk this “disposable hardware” and “planned obsolescence” issue is much more a problem on Android.
The part that matters is that the model is being trained on the copyrighted features of the input, not the parts the copyright holder doesn’t care about.
Apple lets me look at the store of any country I want. And they anyways launch products globally at the same time.
These RockBLOCK's are intended as a drop in comms module for remote embedded devices like weather stations.
I can be confident I will be able to build >90% of go programs by cloning the repo and calling go build.
If every single depositor split their accounts up to always stay under the 250k limit at each bank, FDIC has to insure 100% of deposits at each bank. If there was no limit, and customers didn't split accounts, FDIC has to insure 100% of deposits at each bank.
For any individual bank failure the amount paid out by the FDIC will be the same under 100% deposit insurance vs 250k split deposits. The total deposits insured per bank is the same The behavior change (businesses less likely to panic in a run) is the same.
So it seems to me there isn't a meaningful risk difference to FDIC between this theoretical 250k split deposits world and a 100% deposit insurance world.
If SVB depositors had split their deposits up and stored them at other banks, other banks depositors would have done the same and split their deposits up - and stored some of them at SVB. So from FDIC's perspective, the total amount of deposits at every bank (and so the risk they take as an insurer) after this splitting is the same.
FDIC insurance limited to 250k and a banking system where everybody splits their deposits up into 250k/bank is the same risk profile for FDIC as unlimited FDIC insurance and no splitting up of accounts, assuming the same deposit distribution between banks.
1000 businesses, 10 (same size) banks Scenario A: each bank has 100 depositors, each storing 100% of their deposit with the bank Scenario B: each bank has 1000 depositors, each storing 10% of their deposit with the bank
In both scenarios the total amount deposited at each bank is the same. The risk to FDIC if an individual bank fails is actually higher in scenario B. But the deposit insurance limit rules push us towards scenario B.
So instead the government acts as a sort of "insurer of last resort" by promising they will do everything they can to protect depositors in the case of banking instability.
Splitting up deposits isn’t the intended outcome by regulators here. It doesn’t actually achieve anything meaningful.